[jillybean]

I accept that my 1♠ bid was "gross", as in "terrible" and that I should not be masterminding these hands, but please explain how this is a psyche?
2♥ would be a psyche.


The key word is "gross." If you forget the meaning of a call, that is not a psyche. If you make a call with 12 points when your partnership agreement calls for a maximum of 11, that is not a psyche -- it is not a gross misstatement. If you are playing five-card majors and open the bidding with one spade on a four-card holding, that is not a psyche. In general your call is a gross misstatement, and therefore is considered a psyche, if the call varies by at least two points in strength or two cards in length from your agreement.

[TylerE]

It has already been explained in quite some detail. You've been led to water. Up to you to drink, now.

[Cyberyeti]

mikeh, on 2021-March-26, 13:51, said:

1S on this hand is a psyche.

Is it really, you are 1 card away from a fairly routine 1♠, xxxx, xx, Kx, KQxxx/Qxxx, xx, Kxx, Kxxx are routine 1♠ and you're 1 card of shape and no points off that. To me it's a bent bid that doesn't qualify as a psyche, I also think it's a bad bid that deserves partner to bid 4♠. It's on a level with opening a 12-14 1N on a 4225 11 count when you only theoretically open them on 4333/4432/5332.

I would have expected S to bid a natural 2♠ most of the time.
.

[mikeh]

jillybean, on 2021-March-26, 14:36, said:

I accept that my 1♠ bid was "gross", as in "terrible" and that I should not be masterminding these hands, but please explain how this is a psyche?
2♥ would be a psyche.


The key word is "gross." If you forget the meaning of a call, that is not a psyche. If you make a call with 12 points when your partnership agreement calls for a maximum of 11, that is not a psyche -- it is not a gross misstatement. If you are playing five-card majors and open the bidding with one spade on a four-card holding, that is not a psyche. In general your call is a gross misstatement, and therefore is considered a psyche, if the call varies by at least two points in strength or two cards in length from your agreement.

It’s normal to dig into a position one has taken. However, nobody here is your enemy and you may want to consider why we think this is a psyche, rather than to quote definitions and argue that your call doesn’t fit those definitions. Imo, it does. You can differ, but perhaps consider that you may be incorrect

[jillybean]

I am considering that I could be incorrect, hence my questions. But I should know better than to debate this with you.
I don't consider 3 cards when partner expects 4 as a gross deviation from our agreements. Partner expects 4 cards.
If psyches include ill-conceived deviations then I am incorrect in my understanding of the definition.

The definition I gave above came from my search for ACBL definitions of a psyche, I never find it easy to find details on the ACBL Website.


This is from Duplicate Decisions.

A deviation was defined by Don Oakie (Feb., 1978, ACBL Bridge Bulletin) as a bid in
which the strength of the hand is within a queen of the agreed or announced strength, and
the bid is of a suit of ample length or of notrump. He also defined a deviation as a bid of a
suit in which the length of the suit varies by no more than one card from the agreed or
announced length and the hand contains ample high-card values for the bid in the system
being played. If either of these situations occurs, it is easy to see by repeating the
definition of a psych (a deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength or suit
length) that a deviation is NOT a PSYCH.
However, frequent deviations may indicate that the pair has an undisclosed implied
agreement acquired through experience. This situation should be dealt with firmly.

[pilowsky]

I suspect that one of the problems is the use of the word "gross".
It conjures up all kinds of inappropriate imagery.

Unfortunately, I think the colourful language tends to disguise the real meaning.
People - like myself - who are relatively new to the game - think (thought) that a psychic bid is one that so wildly misstates the content of my hand that when someone else sees it, they will run from the room screaming - so to speak.

I'm coming round to the idea that the definition of a psychic bid is more nuanced than that.
In the sense that Bridge is a game of empathy, I now try to imagine a psychic bid as one where if I am planning to make it, I ask myself the following question.

Suppose I make this bid, and afterwards, when we get a terrible score, will my partner look at me dolefully and shake their head before saying something to the effect of:
"Look, I can see that you are a great player, but to be honest, I'm just not up to your standard; I think I better let you find someone else who is of a higher calibre to play with because clearly, I'm holding you back."?

If they say yes because they understood my bid to mean something that led them to make a bad decision, then it's a psych. If it leads my opponents to make a bad decision and we get penalised, then it's a psych.

One of the wonderful things about playing with/against robots is that the answer to this empathy question is always 'no'. Robots are like goldfish - they have a really short memory.
People are different.

What I'm getting at is that it doesn't matter how some person writes the 'rule'; what matters is how a reasonable person would interpret my bid.

If they would imagine, based on the information provided to them, that a bid means 'X' when you have 'Y', then it is a psychic bid because you have caused them to believe something that simply is not true.
Even if they pass because of your misstatement, it's still a psych when they might otherwise have bid.

That's what Bridge is all about when played with people: truth, integrity and empathy.
Someone writing about something that may not seem completely clear to me or in a way that they could interpret in another way doesn't affect this operational definition.

As Nat King Cole said, "straighten up and fly right" (http://bit.ly/FlyRightNKC).

[Winstonm]

jillybean, on 2021-March-26, 16:19, said:

I am considering that I could be incorrect, hence my questions. But I should know better than to debate this with you.
I don't consider 3 cards when partner expects 4 as a gross deviation from our agreements. Partner expects 4 cards.
If psyches include ill-conceived deviations then I am incorrect in my understanding of the definition.

The definition I gave above came from my search for ACBL definitions of a psyche, I never find it easy to find details on the ACBL Website.


This is from Duplicate Decisions.

A deviation was defined by Don Oakie (Feb., 1978, ACBL Bridge Bulletin) as a bid in
which the strength of the hand is within a queen of the agreed or announced strength, and
the bid is of a suit of ample length or of notrump. He also defined a deviation as a bid of a
suit in which the length of the suit varies by no more than one card from the agreed or
announced length and the hand contains ample high-card values for the bid in the system
being played. If either of these situations occurs, it is easy to see by repeating the
definition of a psych (a deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength or suit
length) that a deviation is NOT a PSYCH.
However, frequent deviations may indicate that the pair has an undisclosed implied
agreement acquired through experience. This situation should be dealt with firmly.

I think you are getting sidetracked by this issue of psyche/not a psyche. It's like the difference between manslaughter and murder - intent


The bigger issue is the thinking process that led you to make the bid. Although you might be right that your hand is not well-suited to declare NT, you have a problem that 1NT is the only bid that you have available that describes your hand, a bid that partner is well-suited to know is a possible hand - after all, the bid denies a 4-card major. Your instincts are right; your discipline is wrong. And bridge above all else is a partnership game - meaning no unilateral decisions and sticking to the system, even when you suspect the system will yield a poor result.

[thepossum]

Sorry but from your description of what happened, what your thought processes were, in my fairly non-expert opinion(but believer in fair play and occasional good psyches) it doesn't even deserve the credit of being called a psyche. You denied your opps chance of competing without even thnkng your decision through properly. No wonder they called the director

[LBengtsson]

I think 1NT horrible but acceptable (available bid only in 2/1). I think 1♠ horrible but NOT acceptable. psyche bid or not, its anti-bridge. you play 4♠ contract on moysian when 3NT better contract.

[sfi]

If you don't want to respond 1NT, which I understand, a better option is to bid 2D if that's a simple raise. If you're playing something like inverted minors, you're kind of stuck with 1NT though.

I actually don't think 1S is a psyche. You're trying to show this as your best available constructive bid, but not very well IMO. 1S looks like it has too many ways to go wrong - partner may raise on 3, partner may raise strongly on 4, partner may rely on you have a stopper and wind up in 3nt with spades being x opposite xxx - and not very many ways to go right.

On the other hand, I have no sympathy for the opponents. Mike covered it well but 2S is beyond obvious. If they systemically can't bid spades after this start, that's also their own fault.

[jillybean]

I do accept that bidding 1♠ was bad, anti-partnership, ill-conceived, masterminding and I have no business to depart from partnership agreements based only on the knowledge of my hand. This was a dull, boring club game. A good time to practice Multi and try different things, discussed or in this case, undiscussed with partner. We did discuss the hand afterwards.

I agree 1♠ is a psyche in as far as it misrepresents my hand to both my partner and my opponents.

Where I disagree, is in my understanding of ACBL’s definition of a psyche, 1♠ would be considered a deviation, not a psyche. I believe it fits into the category of “waiting bid” , albeit an ill-conceived waiting bid. And, would be alerted if the partnership agreed to use it as such.



Does it fall into other definitions of disruptive bidding such as Excessive, Frivolous or Unsportsmanlike Psychic bidding? No. Do we use Psychic Controls? No

For those calling for fair play, honesty and empathy, this is a competitive game with tactics used to deceive your opponents. Psyches are legal, so is False Carding. Both have the potential to mislead your partner and result in a terrible score. Other than Frivolous and Unsportsmanlike Psyches, intent and quality (see paragraph 1) are not judged.

[Douglas43]

If you respond 1NT, the bidding is likely to proceed (2♠) - 3♣ and you reach 5C. So no problem over wrong-sided no trump contracts.

Remember a hand that responds 1NT to 1D virtually guarantees four clubs (or maybe 3=3=4=3).

[nullve]

mikeh, on 2021-March-26, 13:51, said:

Obviously south has a trivial 2S overcall....nobody should play this as anything but natural...not to cater to xxx but because often 2S plays just fine when you know about the break, and most partnerships struggle against 2S here. What, for example, does double show?

sfi, on 2021-March-27, 03:45, said:

On the other hand, I have no sympathy for the opponents. Mike covered it well but 2S is beyond obvious.

So exactly how is the 2♠ overcall defined in your systems? What do the follow-ups look like?

[sfi]

nullve, on 2021-March-27, 05:04, said:

So exactly how is the 2♠ overcall defined in your systems? What do the follow-ups look like?

It's just an overcall with constructive values - less than a hand that wants to double and bid spades, but that would have to be a particularly nice hand given the auction. Good suit, (almost) always 6+ cards.

New suits are whatever new suits are at that level - typically natural and forcing unless we're playing something particularly unusual. We have opener's suit as a cue to show a good hand, and 2NT is whatever it is normally. At the moment it seems to be a good four-trump raise of my suit in most of my partnerships. That clearly doesn't make much sense here - natural seems right - but I suspect we will continue to live with that flaw for the moment.

I would expect a spade raise on the actual North hand - I don't think we're finding hearts.

[mikeh]

nullve, on 2021-March-27, 05:04, said:

So exactly how is the 2♠ overcall defined in your systems? What do the follow-ups look like?

To me, based on comments made by either meckstroth or rodwell, I expect partner to play me for a good weak two in spades, with an emphasis on good suit texture (due to the spade call on my right).

I think waiting for a good hand is a waste of a useful call. Vulnerability matters, but white v red, after say 1D P 1S, KJ1098x Axx xx xx is a sound 2S call.

We don’t play anything special in advancing this call.

[mikeh]

jillybean, on 2021-March-27, 04:03, said:

I do accept that bidding 1♠ was bad, anti-partnership, ill-conceived, masterminding and I have no business to depart from partnership agreements based only on the knowledge of my hand. This was a dull, boring club game. A good time to practice Multi and try different things, discussed or in this case, undiscussed with partner. We did discuss the hand afterwards.

I agree 1♠ is a psyche in as far as it misrepresents my hand to both my partner and my opponents.

Where I disagree, is in my understanding of ACBL’s definition of a psyche, 1♠ would be considered a deviation, not a psyche. I believe it fits into the category of “waiting bid” , albeit an ill-conceived waiting bid. And, would be alerted if the partnership agreed to use it as such.



Does it fall into other definitions of disruptive bidding such as Excessive, Frivolous or Unsportsmanlike Psychic bidding? No. Do we use Psychic Controls? No

For those calling for fair play, honesty and empathy, this is a competitive game with tactics used to deceive your opponents. Psyches are legal, so is False Carding. Both have the potential to mislead your partner and result in a terrible score. Other than Frivolous and Unsportsmanlike Psyches, intent and quality (see paragraph 1) are not judged.

Psyches are absolutely part of th3 game. Maybe one reason I’m not hung up on ACBL definitions is that in one of my two current partnerships we do tend to psyche more than most.

The other day I opened 1S in first chair with something like Jxxx xxx Qxxx xx

1S (2S) 4C (splinter) (p) to me

Tempted tho I was to settle for -350-450 in 4C, I bid 4S...all pass.

Now, 4th chair ought to have acted, but so few players psyche these days that many players don’t know how to react. We were down 100, into their 600 in 5 clubs.

The key to psyching is that partner has to act as if your call was legitimate unless and until the opps, by their actions, bid as if there were 50+ hcp in the deck.

If we eliminated the pervasive bias against psyching, we’d do away with nitpicking over definitions. When I say your 1S was a psyche, I meant NO implication of unethical behaviour. I think it was a poor bid, more likely to harm your side than to help it, but there’s nothing the least underhanded about it

[mycroft]

If you're going to use the ACBL's "guide to understanding gross" - which is all that is, whether in DD or in the new convention charts - then you should have to use the GCC which makes it an illegal Artificial agreement. Or the new ACBL Alert Chart, which requires Alerting it - every time - if that is a "minor deviation" (surely if 654 is a minor deviation, then AKT is part of your agreement, no?)

You psyched - for a decent reason, even if the consensus is that it's a bad one - it's legal, and it worked, because the opponents can't handle the baby psych. Take your good score and go on to the next hand.

I have an experiment. Ask your opponents (who haven't seen this thread or your hand) what a minimum holding for 1♣-1♠ is. A sub-minimum holding, even. If you get several who thinks lowball 3-straight, or even rummoli (987), fine. If you get two, then maybe it's a minor deviation, or major at worst. If there's at most one other weirdo out there who thinks this is a "sub-minimum" 4-card major without prompting, I think "gross" is a reasonable description, don't you? "An option a minority of your peers would consider, of which no-one would actually take", to misquote the definition of "(not a) logical alternative"?

I reiterate my previous response. You want it to be a psychic, because that is legal and doesn't put you into implied agreement territory - because either you conceal said implied agreement (which is illegal), or you disclose it per your RA's Alerting regulations, every time, whether it happens again or not. Or own it with your partner, tweak your system to handle it, and play it open and proud, if that happens to be legal in your game.

I'm playing in a limited-MP game regularly for the first time in forever, because it's the only "afternoon" game late enough that I can play it. Two or three weeks in, I realize that our system is not Basic+ legal without (minor) tweaks, and I'd definitely been playing it without those tweaks; and the MP limit is in the ACBL's "Basic+ recommendation" for clubs. So I asked, and apologized for not asking before. Turns out it is Open Chart, so I was good. But if it had not been I also would have had that choice - play a Basic+ legal system (and not "psych it" by shaving the point or two we play in Open), or not play in the game.

[jillybean]

Fair enough, psyche or deviation, I am convinced it's gross and I should not be using it.
It rubs both ways here, we have had players open a multi 2♦ with 5hcp, 6 to the J in their "suit".
Bad bridge or psyche, we are getting better at bidding over the Multi.

Thanks for the lively thread and helpful replies.

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2021-March-26, 10:15, said:

[1] And yet again, I get trapped wishing for a single-character-width ten. 3=3=3=5 felt wrong, but I couldn't figure out why for a bit.

107 is actually slightly *wider* than 764.
I find it unbelievable that people consistently refuse to recognise and resolve this problem.
But then we move the clock tonight...

[blackshoe]

I once made a rather stupid 2♦ bid in a competitive auction. After the smoke cleared I wondered aloud "did I psych?" Opponent responded "no, you made a stupid bid." And I got what I deserved.